|
 |
|
Who to blame for the suckitude
Posted by: evil_jackass |
|
|
Topic Theories
Saying Seattle sucks means different things to different people. If you talk to someone who moved here, they'll likely have a litany of complaints, not the least of which being that the locals are passive aggressive, socially retarded weirdos.
If you ask a local, they'll tell you that Seattle sucks because of all of the "transplants" (that term is overused in this area) who came in and changed the place.
So who's right?
Let's look at the locals, first. They claim that Seattle was a great, easy going, progressive city before "everyone else" moved in an stunk it up with high real estate prices and traffic congestion (not to mention that their type A work ethics made it harder for the slacker locals to get decent jobs). Their response has been, almost collectively, to circle the wagons and put up a passive resistance to the changes they're experiencing.
In many ways, their attitude reminds me of a passive-aggresive teenager whose mom re-marries some guy that they don't like, and who longs for the time that they were a latchkey kid with a single parent (and lax discipline) or begins to idealize their real dad (even if he was a deadbeat drunk) or whatever. There's not a whole lot the teenager can do about it, other than be surly, sarcastic, and loath to do any real work around the house. The teenager, however, will eventually turn 18, graduate, and move out on his or her own.
To the Seattle people, I think we (non-locals) are collectively like the step-parent who will never go away. Said locals could always move, but they seem to fear and disdain the rest of the country; so they sit here, pout, and try to make interactions as unpleasant as possible in hopes that it will drive people off, or maybe it just makes them feel just a fraction less helpless.
Meanwhile, from the outsiders' perspective, moving here is like marrying a really hot older woman who has said recalcitrant progeny that makes an otherwise positive experience turn into a nightmare. In this case, much like what the natives see, as long as you're "married" to the proverbial hot chick (think of the local scenery and mild climate as big boobs and a tight ass, or, if you're female, whatever it is you find attractive about guys), you're going to have to put up with her nerd/loser whiney, mopey son (metaphor for the locals).
The only conclusion I could see in this abstraction is to either endure this misery or "divorce" (that is, move) the source of it, as you'll not likely get the dysfunction to subside and you can't have the big tits and nice ass without also having to deal with the hormonally imbalanced, moody step-kid (again, meaning, here, you can't have the nice scenery and low pollution benefits without also dealing with the bullshit locals).
I think this would benefit everyone. The locals win in the regard that they go back to being the dysfunctional loser latch key kids of America, and the "transplants" get to go live somewhere where people don't act like shitty little douchebags for no apparent reason other than that your presence in their city raises the work ethic bar, and that offends their innate sense of laziness.
|
|
|
| Who to blame for the suckitude | Log-in or register a new user account | 0 Comments |
|
| Comments are statements made by the person that posted them.
They do not necessarily represent the opinions of the site editor. |
|
